Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #115588
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. |
| Date | 2012-06-21 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <CC08B59D.3C66%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <42e3f942-9a43-4168-9294-7ceb47b1b831@googlegroups.com> <CC08971C.3C3A%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <ca47aa6d-8f9c-4fd3-8160-343dc53631a6@googlegroups.com> <CC08AD6A.3C57%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> <b34761c1-c8ab-4826-befa-b484fddd8345@googlegroups.com> |
On 6/21/12 11:03 AM, in article
b34761c1-c8ab-4826-befa-b484fddd8345@googlegroups.com, "cc"
<scatnubbs@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
>> So if you create a trend line and use that as your basis of understanding -
>> assuming all data that falls outside the trend line is "erroneous" or an
>> "outlier", you do not see how you would fail to miss trends. This is
>> interesting. But it is exactly what you did.
>
> This is an outright lie, because I did nothing of the sort. You still don't
> understand what I did, fine, but don't lie about it.
Well, you claimed to!
cc:
-----
It will be 1%. Same as it ever was.
-----
But you are right that you were lying when you said that - you knew it was
not always the same. Here are some quotes where you acknowledged this:
cc:
-----
Linux has been on a significant downward trend since then.
-----
And if you look at January and then look at now, then there
is a downward trend.
-----
In those quotes you made it clear you knew I was right that the data showed
an increase before 2012 and then a decrease at the start of 2012 - which is
contrary to the claim that the data was always the "same".
Of course, when this is noted and your quotes are shown to you, your
reaction is to snip and run. Just as you do when the topic of your claims
about sigma lines come up. You just run. You *know* you are full of it.
This is not a question: you know you are lying. You know you have been
proved wrong. It is just amusing to watch you squirm.
>>> The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value is a better fit
>>> to the trend of the data.
>>
>> <http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
>> -----
>> A greater R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility
>> for trend.
>> -----
>>
>> Can you explain what that means to you in your own words?
>
> "The results suggest that an INCREASE IN THE R^2 OF THE LINEAR TREND LINE may
> imply an INCREASE IN THE CREDIBILITY OF THE TREND LINE, reliance on a greater
> amount of trend, or a more reliable resulting estimate. Which of these or
> which combination of these in the case depends on the data at hand. A greater
> R^2 does not necessarily imply greater credibility for trend." [emphasis mine]
You did not emphasize the word "may". Let me do it for you:
<http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed81/81160.pdf>
-----
The results suggest that an increase in the R^2 of the linear
trend line *MAY* imply an increase in the credibility of the
trend line ...
-----
Compare this with your claim:
cc:
-----
The very definition of R^2 means that the better R^2 value
*IS* a better fit to the trend of the data.
-----
Are you able to see the difference in those claims? This might help you:
think of the difference in the meaning of "may" and "is"... or look it up if
you have to.
Below you show you missed the difference...
> I like how you left out the most important sentence. An greater R^2 value
> implies an increase in credibility of the trend line. That's a direct
> statement from above. Of course the 2nd sentence, the one you quoted means
> that the R^2 value cannot be used to determine if the data contains any
> outliers, ie cannot imply greater credibility for the trend. This is EXACTLY
> what I have been telling you. Thank you for finding a source.
LOL! Back to claiming sources which contradict your claims are supportive
of them.
I do so enjoy watching you squirm. Oh, and I was right about you running.
You *always* do. It is amazing to watch! You never explained what I asked
you to. From the post you responded to:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then explain how you missed the upward trend in the latter half of 2011:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrend2011-2ndhalf.png>. Clear as day
there... and even obvious in the initial data:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>.
You have to be pretty dense to *not* see that there is an upward trend and
then a downward trend in that data. And, with that data, overall there is
an upward trend, but based on the last few data points clearly not fitting
with the overall trend (the data is not linear), it would be absurd to use
that trend line - or any *linear* trend line - as a predictive tool. Using
a linear trend line is not going to work to be a good predictive tool for
non-linear data.
This whole time you have been just playing games - showing off your
ignorance. And you know it. It is the reason you keep making excuses for
avoiding questions. The three most recent:
1) For a normal distribution, how can you visually tell if the sigma lines
are drawn correctly?
2) For question 1, can this placement be based on the distance from the mean
to any other element on the curve - and if so, what element?
3) Given this data: <http://goo.gl/NhFuK>, does this show a steady rate, an
increase, or a decrease for the second half of 2011?
There are more, of course - they are linked in my .sig - but you will
*never* answer them. Even you know, cc, that you are ignorant. That is why
you keep snipping.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See how predictable it is that you will snip and run.
Oh, cc, you are such a silly coward. I love watching you freak out as you
are!
--
The indisputable facts about that absurd debate: <http://goo.gl/2337P>
cc being proved wrong about his stats BS: <http://goo.gl/1aYrP>
7 simple questions cc will *never* answer: <http://goo.gl/cNBzu>
cc again pretends to be knowledgeable about things he is clueless about.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-18 21:13 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:21 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 16:26 +0200
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 07:51 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 07:59 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 17:16 +0200
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:23 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:01 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:20 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:00 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:13 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 08:30 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:58 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 09:46 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 10:23 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 11:21 -0700
Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:16 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:27 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:33 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:39 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 12:41 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 13:23 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:34 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-19 16:16 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 18:35 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 05:27 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:36 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 08:43 -0700
Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 08:47 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:34 -0700
Watch cc run! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 09:59 -0700
OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 10:57 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:10 -0700
cc and Carroll lie about their running. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 11:48 -0700
Re: cc and Carroll lie about their running. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 11:57 -0700
cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 12:26 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 12:39 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 13:56 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:15 -0700
Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 14:59 -0700
Re: Wow... cc proves he is a coward *again*! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:16 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:24 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 19:45 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-20 22:52 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 04:07 +0000
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-20 21:10 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:57 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? High Plains Thumper <hpt@invalid.invalid> - 2012-06-21 08:16 -0600
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:55 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:35 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 05:14 -0700
Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 09:17 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 10:08 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 10:52 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 11:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 13:13 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 12:35 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-21 13:50 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-21 14:27 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 15:30 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:03 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 06:11 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:02 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:24 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:34 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:00 -0700
cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 14:38 -0700
Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:51 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 22:42 -0400
Re: Help with understanding outliers Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:22 +0200
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 14:32 +0000
Re: Help with understanding outliers Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> - 2012-06-23 11:02 -0400
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:31 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:21 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2012-06-23 16:45 +0100
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 18:58 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 19:55 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:52 -0700
Re: Help with understanding outliers Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-23 22:48 -0400
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 19:04 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 20:22 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-23 14:20 +0200
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:12 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. Nobody <invalid@invalid.com> - 2012-06-24 14:59 -0500
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-25 05:31 -0700
Re: cc is proved wrong about "outliers"... but he will never admit to it. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-25 06:45 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:58 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2012-06-23 09:09 +0200
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2012-06-23 00:25 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:10 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-23 08:22 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 18:59 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-21 22:31 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-21 22:23 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2012-06-22 08:04 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:38 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:29 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2012-06-22 05:04 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 19:27 -0400
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-06-22 09:45 +0100
Re: Maybe cc will not run *this* time? But I bet he will. Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2012-06-22 07:30 -0400
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 14:33 -0700
Re: cc runs *again*. How much of a coward can he be? Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:13 -0700
Re: OT: The realities Snit must overlook to continue... Re: Once again cc tried to back his claims... and falls flat on his face. Now watch him run! Onion Knight <onionknightgot@gmail.com> - 2012-06-20 18:14 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:59 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2012-06-19 08:45 -0700
Re: OT: The "stats" debate... dead and buried Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2012-06-18 23:00 -0700
csiph-web